I suppose it comes down to balancing the reduced reliability of the gun due to the added features versus their utility. Let's say you get into a physical altercation while carrying a gun. While I would want the ability to defend myself with deadly force if I'm physically attacked, the law does not permit me to do so unless the attack threatens my life or grevious bodily harm. So you might indeed find yourself wrestling with someone and being unable to use your gun in self defense. And they might grab your gun and try to shoot you with it. At that moment I l'd want the safety features to kick in and prevent them from doing so. All of this to say that there are legitimate uses for the features they are proposing. Whwt I don't want to see, and what they want to do, is to make these features mandatory, making gun ownership prohibitively expensive for a lot of people, as well as taking away the choice from the gun owner.